Trial Statistics - United States Patent And Trademark Office
Trial StatisticsIPR, PGR, CBMPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSeptember 2020
Petitions by Trial Type(All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)IPR11,29993%12,147TotalCBM6025%PGR2462%Trial types include Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and CoveredBusiness Method (CBM).3
Petitions Filed by Technology in FY20(FY20: Oct. 1, 2019 to Sept. 30, 2020)Mechanical &Business mical987%Bio/Pharma785%Design201%4
Petitions Filed by Month(Sept. 2020 and Previous 12 Months: Sept. 1, 2019 to Sept. 30, 2020)(1,429 IPRs in FY20)9997743Sep-19133119887923110 9PGR(64 PGRs in FY20)9 7 63 4 5Sep-2015185IPRSep-195155152150144Sep-20(20 CBMs in FY20)00Sep-1950022CBM011018Sep-205
Institution Rates(FY13 to FY20: Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19Institution rate for each fiscal year is calculated by dividing petitions instituted bydecisions on institution (i.e., petitions instituted plus petitions denied). The outcomesof decisions on institution responsive to requests for rehearing are excluded.FY206
Institution Rates by Technology(All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)Bio/Pharma58% (549 of 941)ChemicalDesignElectrical/ComputerMechanical &Business Method61% (360 of 590)35% (21 of 60)66% (3,684 of 5,603)67% (1,584 of 2,374)Institution rate for each technology is calculated by dividing petitions instituted bydecisions on institution (i.e., petitions instituted plus petitions denied). The outcomesof decisions on institution responsive to requests for rehearing are excluded.7
Pre-Institution Settlements(FY13 to FY20: Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)20%Settlement 16FY17FY18FY19Settlement rate for each year is calculated by dividing pre-institution settlements bythe sum of proceedings instituted, denied institution, dismissed, terminated with arequest for adverse judgment, and settled before decision on institution.FY208
Post-Institution Settlements(FY13 to FY20: Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)Settlement FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19Settlement rate for each year is calculated by dividing post-institution settlements byproceedings terminated post-institution (i.e., settled, dismissed, terminated with arequest for adverse judgment, and final written decision), excluding joined cases.FY209
Status of Petitions(All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)12,1471,30976357These figures reflect the latest status of each petition. The outcomes of decisions oninstitution responsive to requests for rehearing are incorporated. Once joined to a basecase, a petition remains in the Joined category regardless of subsequent outcomes.3,414Final Writ.Decisions524RequestedAdverse J.548DismissedDeniedRequestedAdverse d48Pending137Joined1,554Instituted84010
Outcome of Concluded Proceedings(All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020)Institution Denied3,34033%Settled2,86329%FWD AllPatentable673FWD Mixed7%6276%FWD AllUnpatentable2,11421%RequestedAdverse J.4054%Joined and dismissed cases are excluded.FWD3,41434%Percentage of Final Written Decisions673 20%627 18%2,114 62%FWD All PatentableFWD MixedFWD All Unpatentable11
Trial Statistics IPR, PGR, CBM Patent Trial and Appeal Board September 2020. IPR 11,299 93%. CBM 602 5%. PGR 246 2%. 12,147 Total. 3. Petitions by Trial Type (All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2020) Trial types include Inter Partes Review (IPR ), Post Grant Review (PGR ), and Covered
Trial Statistics IPR, PGR, CBM Patent Trial and Appeal Board January 2020. 3 Petitions by Trial Type (All Time: Sept. 16, 2012 to Jan. 31, 2020) Trial types include Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM). 4 Petitions Filed by Technology in FY20
Australian Patent No. 692929 Australian Patent No. 708311 Australian Patent No. 709987 Australian Patent No. 710420 Australian Patent No. 711699 Australian Patent No. 712238 Australian Patent No. 728154 Australian Patent No. 731197 PATENTED NO. EP0752134 PATENTED NO.
United States Patent [191 Schaefer US00570 1 006A Patent Number: 5,701,006 Dec. 23, 1997 [11] [45] Date of Patent: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING DISTANCES USING FIBER
US007039530B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent N0.:US 7 9 039 9 530 B2 Bailey et al. (45) Date of Patent: May 2, 2006 (Us) FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS (73) Asslgnee. ' . Ashcroft Inc., Stratford, CT (US) EP EP 0 1 621 059 462 516 A2 A1 10/1994 12/2000
USOO6039279A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 6,039,279 Datcuk, Jr. et al. (45) Date of Patent: Mar. 21, 2000 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
United States Patent [191 4,686,605 United States Patent [191 Eastlund [11] Patent Number: [45] Date of Patent: 4,686,605 Aug. 11, 1987 [54] METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ALTERING A REGION IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, IONOSPHERE, AND/ OR MAGNETOSPHERE [75] Inventor: Bernard J. Eastlund, Spring, Tex.
Book indicating when the patent was listed PTAB manually identified biologic patents as any patent potentially covering a Purple Book-listed product and any non-Orange Book-listed patent directed to treating a disease or condition The litigation referenced in this study is limited to litigation that the parties to a
Take-off Tests Answer key 2 Answer key 1 Fill in the gaps 1 open 6 switch 2 turn 7 clean 3 pull 8 remove 4 start 9 rotate 5 press 10 hold 2 Complete the sentences 1 must 2 must not 3 must 4 cannot/must 5 must not 6 must not 7 must not 8 can 9 must 3 Make full sentences 1 Electric tools are heavier than air tools. 2 Air tools are easier to handle than electric tools. 3 Air tools are cheaper .
